## Comments

on

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE-07-02)

Prepared for

Gloria D. Smith Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo

601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

Prepared by

Petra Pless, D.Env.
San Rafael, CA 94903

July 7, 2008i 

### Table of Contents

I. The Proposed PSD Permit and State ment of Basis Frustrate Public

Review ................................................................................................................... 5

II. The Agency’s Completeness De termination Was Issued Prematurely and Is Deficient.............................................................................. 7

III. The Agency’s PM2.5 PSD Analysis Is Flawed ................................................... 8

III.A The Use of PM10 as a Surrogate for PM2.5 Violates Federal Law and Relies on Guidance That Is In Conflict with Statutory Requirements and Is No Longer Technically Justif ied ......................................................................................................... .................... 9

III.B The Agency Must Implement the Final Ru le for Implementation of the New Source Review Program for PM2.5 ............................................................................................... 10

III.C Modeled PM2.5 Emissions from the Proj ect’s Stationary Sources Exceed PM10 Significant Impa ct Levels ..................................................................................................... ............. 11

III.D Fugitive Dust PM2.5 Emissions from the Pr oject May Result in a Violation of the
24-Hour National Ambient Air Qu ality Standard for PM2. 5 .................................................. 13

IV. The Proposed PSD Permit’s BACT Determinations Are Incomplete

and Deficient ...................................................................................................... 14

IV.A The Proposed PSD Permit Lacks a BACT Analysis and Permit Limits for

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................. 14

IV.B The Agency Failed to Follow Its Own Procedures in Establishing BACT Limits ............... 15

IV.C The CO BACT Determination for CTGs Is Flawed ................................................................. 16

IV.C.1 The CO BACT Determination Does Not Follow the Top-down

Procedure Established as a Standa rd for BACT De termination ............................. 17

IV.C.2 Lower CO Limits Have Been Permitte d Under All Firing Conditions .................. 18

IV.C.3 Lower CO Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice ................................... 19

IV.D The PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2. 5) BACT Determination for CTGs Is

Flawed ........................................................................................................................ .......................... 20

IV.D.1 The PM and PM2.5 BACT Determinations Do Not Follow the Topdown Procedure Established as Standard for BACT Analyses ................................ 20

IV.D.2 Lower PM10 Emissions Limits Have Been Pe rmitted ................................................ 21

IV.D.3 Lower PM10 Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice ............................... 22

IV.D.4 Demonstrated In Practice Is the Wrong Standard for Emission Control Technologies .................................................................................................................. ...... 23

IV.D.5 Proposed Test Methods to Determine Compliance Require Lowering the PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Limits .................................... 24

IV.E BACT Determinations for Auxiliary Boiler, Auxiliary, Heater, Emergency Engine, and Firewater Pump Are Flawed ................................................................................................. .. 25ii V. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Include a Permit Limit for Ammonia Slip ..................................................................................................... 26

VI. The Proposed PSD Permit Limits Are Not Enforceable .............................. 26

VI.A Testing for PM and PM10 Emission Limits for CTGs Is Not Adequate to Assure

Continuous Compliance ......................................................................................................... ......... 27

VI.B No Recordkeeping for Hours of Operation for Duct Burners .............................................. 28

VI.C Insufficient Monitoring for Cooling Tower Emissions .............................................................. 29

VI.D No Restrictions on Hours of Operation and No Compliance Testing for Heater, Boiler, Emergency Use Engine, or Fire Water Pump ............................................................... 29

Tables

Table A-1: Permitted PM and PM10 Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle

Power Plants with F-Class Turbines

Table A-2: Permitted CO Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants

with F-Class Turbines

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Source Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration an d Nonattainment Area Permitting, Draft, October 1990; pp. B.56, C.28 and H.5

Exhibit 2: California Energy Commission, Victorvi lle 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application for Certification (07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision, CEC-800-2008-003-PMPD, May 2008, pp. 35, 38, 78, 110, 115, and

119-120

Exhibit 3: T. Piechota, J. van Ee, J. Batista, K. Stave, D. James, Universi ty of Nevada, Las Vegas, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Eds.), Potential Environmental Impacts of Dust Suppressants: “Avoiding Another Times Beach,” An Expert Panel Summary, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 30-31, 2002, Table 5, pp. 16 and 50

Exhibit 4: Candidate Stationary and Area Co ntrol Measures, Chicago PM2.5 Workshop, June
21, 2007, Tim Smith, USEPA

Exhibit 5: Inland Energy, Inc., Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Responses to CURE Data Requests, Set 2, August 2007, pp. AQ-19 – AQ-20

Exhibit 6: The Avogadro Group, Los Medanos Energy Center Report for Initial Emission Compliance Tests, January 22, 2002, without appendices

Exhibit 7: The Avogadro Group, Revised Repo rt for Startup Emission Compliance Tests and CEMS Part 60 and Part 75 RATA, Sutter Power Project, Yuba City, California, January 2002, without appendicesiii Exhibit 8: California Energy Commission, Blyt he Energy Project Phase II, Application for Certification (02-AFC-1), Commiss ion Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, December 2005, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35

Exhibit 9: U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-01, April 25, 2007, Condition D, p. 6

Exhibit 10: California Energy Commission, Energy Facility Status, Projects since 1997, Updated:

6/20/2008

Exhibit 11: California Energy Commission, Cosumn es Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, Application for Certification (01-AFC- 19), Commission Decision, P800-03-013, September 2003, Condition AQ-17, pp. 27-28

Exhibit 12: The Avogadro Group, LLC, Source Test Report, 2007 Emission Compliance Tests,
SFA Cosumnes Power Plant, Herald, Califor nia, March 16, 2007, without appendices

Exhibit 13: California Energy Commission, In the Matter of: Los Medanos Energy Center, Order No. 07-0523-4, Order Approving a Petition to Lower the Annual PM10 Emissions Limit for the Facility, Docket No. 98-AFC-1C

Exhibit 14: T.F. Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices, Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting, June 13, 1989

Exhibit 15: Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Redu ctions by Improving Performance of Control Devices: Conclusions and Recommendations, Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by E.H. Pechan & As sociates, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-D-00- 265, September 30, 2005

Exhibit 16: CIBO Industrial Emissions Control Technology II Conference, August 2 - 4, 2004
Portland, Maine

Exhibit 17: U.S. Department of Energy, Demonstr ation of a Full-Scale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulate Collector Technology, February 2007

Exhibit 18: G.C. England, Development of Fine Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation

Profiles for Oil and Gas-fired Combusti on Systems, Technical Memorandum: Conceptual Model of Sources of Variabilit y in Combustion Turbine PM10 Emissions
Data, March, 2004

Exhibit 19: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pu rsuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02- 01, April 25, 2007

Exhibit 20: California Energy Commission, Russell City Energy Center, Amendment No. 1 (01- AFC-7C), Alameda County, Final Commi ssion Decision, CEC-800-2007-003-CMF

Exhibit 21: California Energy Commission, Pittsbur g District Energy Facilit y [now Los Medanos, Application for Certification (98-AFC- 1), Commission Decision, P800-99-013, August, 1999

Exhibit 22: California Energy Commission, Moss La nding Power Plant Project, Application for
Certification, Commission Decision, P 800-00-008, November 2000iv Exhibit 23: California Energy Commission, The Metcalf Energy Center, Application for Certification (99-AFC-3), Santa Clara County, Commission Decision, P800-01-023, September 2001

Exhibit 24: California Energy Commission, Mount ainview Power Project, Application for Certification (00-AFC-2), San Bernardi no County, Commission Decision, P800-01-

008

Exhibit 25: California Energy Commission, Inla nd Empire Energy Center, Application for Certification (01-AFC-17), Riverside Co unty, Commission Decision, December

2003

Exhibit 26: California Energy Commission, Magnolia Power Project, Application for Certification (01-AFC-6), Los Angeles County, City of Burbank, Commission Decision, P800-03-
003, March 2003

Exhibit 27: California Energy Commission, Malburg Generating Station Project, Application for Certification 01-AFC-25, City of Vernon, Los Angeles County, Commission Decision, May 2003, P800-03-007

Exhibit 28: Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project, BP
West Coast Products, LLC, Whatcom Co unty, Washington, Final Approval of Construction and Prevention of Signif icant Deterioration, No. EFSEC/2002-01,
October 10, 2006

### COMMENTS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (“EPA” or “the Agency”) proposes to issue a Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (“NSR”) re quirements for the Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (“Victorville II” or “the Proj ect”) applied for by the City of Victorville (“Applicant”). 1

As discussed below, the proposed PSD Permit is inadequate because (I) the proposed PSD Permit and the supporting Stat ement of Basis frustrate public review; (II) the application completeness determ ination was prematurely issued and is deficient; (III) the Agency failed to determine that the Project may result in violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard; (IV) the best available control technology (“BACT”) de terminations are incomplete and flawed including the lack of a BACT determination for greenhouse gases and the failure to require BACT for particulate matter and carbon monoxide (“CO ”) emissions from the combustion turbine generators (“CTGs”); (V) it fails to set a lim it for the ammonia slip from the selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) system; and (VI) the proposed permit limits are not federally enforceable.



### I. The Proposed PSD Permit and Statement of Basis Frustrate

Public Review

For all practical purposes, the proposed PSD Permit and the supporting Statement of Basis are presented in a way th at makes it impossible for an independent reviewer to trace the Agency’s decision process.

The Statement of Basis does not presen t the entire information necessary to determine whether the Agency’s determinations are correct. Instead, the reviewer has to consult a multitude of documents beyond th e Applicant’s application for a PSD Permit (“PSD Application”) and its supplements. For example, instead of providing a complete BACT analysis for each pollutant and sour ce subject to PSD review to support the BACT-based permit limits in the body of the document, the Statement of Basis only provides brief summaries that are based on a number of additional documents. The PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) BACT analys is for the Project’s CTGs is a prime example. The Statement of Basis provides the following terse summary:

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Victorville II Hybrid Power Project (SE07-02), Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, Proposed Permit Conditions, June 2008 (“proposed PSD Permit”); Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0017; and Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report for a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, June 2008 (“Statement of Basis”); Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0016.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

6 Particulate emissions from the gas turbine trains result from fuel sulfur, inert trace contaminants, and incomplete comb ustion of hydrocarbons. We do not believe that any add-on particulate emissi on controls have been demonstrated in practice for this type of source. Thus, the proposed permit limits the sulfur content of the fuel to no more than 0.2 g rains per 100 dry standard cubic feet as
BACT, which would limit sulf ate particulate emissions.

We are proposing to limit particulate em issions (PM and PM10) to 12 lb/hr from each turbine without duct burner firing, and 18 lb/hr with duct burner firing. As noted earlier, using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 does not affect the emission

controls selected as BACT. 2

The Agency’s conclusion regarding PM and PM2.5 BACT appear to be based on the BACT analyses contained in two supplem ental submissions to the PSD Application
for PM2.5 and PM, but the Statement of Basis does not mention these documents. These supplements to the PSD Application can be found in the docket on the Agency’s

website. 3,4 Review of these document shows that they, in turn, do not contain all information relied upon to come to conclu sions regarding BACT either. The necessary information, specifically, the PM and PM 10 permit limits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s BACT Gu idelines and the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (“RBLC”) for other, similar fac ilities relied upon to determine the BACT permit limits for Victorville II are not provided in the supplements to the PSD Application or for that matter anywhere in documents listed on the Agency’s website. The respective BACT determinat ions contain no reference where to find the information they relied upon to reach their conclusions regarding the proposed BACT permit limits.

The docket shows that a number of Ca lifornia Energy Commission documents have

been submitted into the administrative record such as the Application for Certification (“AFC”) 5 , the Preliminary 6 and Final Staff Assessments 7 , and some mysterious

2 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15.

3 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Do cket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009.

4 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to An ita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010.

5 Inland Energy, Inc., Application for Certification, Victorville Hybrid Power Project, February 2007.

6 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application For Certification (07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Preliminary Staff Assessment, CEC-700-2007-021-PSA,

November 2007.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

7 “Distribution of Supplemental Information,” which are not available directly on the

EPA’s website but rather are available on the CEC’s website. 8 This sends the reviewer on a wild goose chase searching through these several hundred-page documents and their respective, equally long appendices, upda tes, and revisions to find the most up-todate list of permit limits for these pollutants.

This approach does not satisfy the Agency’s obligation to conduct an independent review of the Applicant’s BACT determinations and frustrates public review and analysis. The basis for the Agen cy’s decisions must be clear and welldocumented in a stand-alone document refe rencing a few clearly identified documents without requiring the reviewer to wade thro ugh stacks of documents on the Agency’s and the California Energy Commission’s websites.



### II. The Agency’s Completeness Determination Was Issued Prematurely and Is Deficient

On June 13, 2007, the Agency issued an a pplication completeness determination (“Completeness Determination”) to the Applic ant stating that the Agency received the initial PSD Application on May 8, 2007 and an update on June 22, 2007, which together would cover the pollutants NOx, CO, and PM 2.5, and that the Agency deems the PSD Application administratively complete. 9 There are a number of problems with this Completeness Determination.

First, the Completeness Determination was issued prematurely because it did not address PM, one of the criteria pollutants subject to PSD review. 10 On December 20, 2007, six months after the Completeness De termination was issued, the Agency requested information regarding PM and receiv ed a PM analysis from the Applicant on January 28, 2008. 11 An analysis of PM is essential fo r the Agency’s review of the Project

7 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application For Certification (07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Final Staff Assessment, CEC-700-2007-021-FSA, March 2008.

8 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Administrative Record Index, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, PSD Permit (SE-07 -02), Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406, see footnote referencing the availability of CEC documents at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases /victorville2/documents/index.html

.

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Jo n Roberts, City of Victor ville, Subject: Application Completeness Determination for Victorville II Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Application, June 13, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0008S.

10 Statement of Basis, Table 3, p. 9.

11 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to An ita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

8 as PM is a regulated PSD pollutant. Thus, this information must be available to the Agency before issuing a Completeness Determ ination. The request for this information six months after issuing the Completene ss Determination demonstrates that the Completeness Determination was issued prem aturely because it did not address PM.

Second, greenhouse gases are also polluta nts subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act, as discussed in more deta il in Comment IV.A, and the Agency should have addressed these pollutants in its re view and in the Completeness Determination but did not. Therefore, the Completeness Dete rmination is deficient because it failed to address pollutants subject to regulation under the Act.

Third, the Agency failed to set PM2.5 BA CT limits instead using PM10 BACT as a surrogate. As discussed in Comment III.A, th is approach violates federal law.

In sum, the Agency issued the Comple teness Determination to the Applicant without covering all aspects necessary to actually determine administrative completeness of the PSD Application.



### III. The Agency’s PM2.5 PSD Analysis Is Flawed

The Statement of Basis identifies PM2.5 as an attainment pollutant subject to PSD

review. 12 For purposes of PSD review of PM2.5, th e Agency determined that the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 is appropriate. 13 Accordingly, the analysis of Project impacts on ambient air quality relies on modeling of estimated PM10 emissions. 14 For a 24-hour averaging period, maximum projec t impacts from all Project sources were estimated at 6.1 μg/m 3 of PM2.5 (on a PM10 as a surrogate basis). On an annual basis, maximum Project impacts were modeled at 0.3 μg/m 3 of PM2.5 (on a PM10 as a surrogate basis. 15,16 Based on these modeled maximum impacts, the Agency concludes that operation of Victorville II would not cause a violation of the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) and would therefore not be significant. 17 The Agency’s analyses violate federal law and are flawed. Therefore, the Agency’s conclusions regarding the significance of Pr oject impacts are erroneous as discussed in the following.

12 Statement of Basis, p. 9.

13 Ibid

.

14 Ibid and footnote 15, p. 20.

15 Statement of Basis, Table 7, p. 20.

16 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No . EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009; Table 2, p. 5.

17 Statement of Basis, p. 19.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

9 III.A The Use of PM10 as a Surrogate for PM2.5 Violates Federal Law and Relies

on Guidance That Is In Conflict with Statutory Requirements and Is No Longer Technically Justified

Contrary to the Agency’s assertions, PM10 cannot be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 for purposes of PSD review. This surrogate approach violates federal law and relies on guidance that is in conflict with statutory requirements, and is no longer technically justified.

Using PM10 as if it were PM2.5 violates federal and state law. The EPA since 1997 has distinguished PM2.5 from PM10, most importantly by setting different NAAQS for each pollutant based on their different health impacts. 32 The Clean Air Act contains specific requirements regarding are as whose air quality violates the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS. 31 Therefore, the Agency must determine directly whether the project will result in a significant emissions increase and significant net emissions increase of PM2.5 to ensure protection of the public health and compliance with the NAAQS.

Further, the Agency based its decision to use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5
emissions on its “October 23, 1997 transition memo guidelines, which authorize limits for PM10 as a surrogate for limits on PM2. 5 du ring the transition period lasting until final PSD PM2.5 regulations are issued...” 18 Reliance on this memo is improper and invalidates the Agency’s analysis of PM2.5.

First, the Agency cannot rely on guidan ce that does not have the force of law when that guidance, as here, is in conflict with statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, a BACT limit is required “for ea ch regulated NSR pollutant for which the source has the potential to em it in significant amounts.” 19 A “regulated NSR pollutant” includes any “pollutant for which a nation al ambient air quali ty standard has been promulgated...” and any other “pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under the [Clean Air] Act...” 20 Therefore, the Agency shou ld have analyzed PM2.5 as a separate pollutant and issued a separate PM2.5 BACT limit.

Second, the Agency’s recommended use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 expired by its own terms when the EPA pub lished the final PM2.5 implementation rule in September 2007. 21 The 1997 memo cited above provided interim guidance for

18 Statement of Basis, footnote 8, p. 12.

19 40 CFR 52.21(j)(2).

20 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50(i) – (iv).

21 See Final Rule for Implementation of the New Sour ce Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

10 implementing the new PM2.5 NAAQS. 22 This now nearly ten-year-old memo stated that sources could use the PM10 surrogacy approach to meet NSR requirements until certain difficulties were resolved, most notably with respect to monitoring, emissions estimation, and air quality modeling. A more recent EPA memo reaffirmed the surrogacy approach specifically for nona ttainment NSR but noted that U.S. EPA recommended using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 “until [U.S. EPA] promulgate[s] the PM2.5 implementation rule.” 23 As mentioned above, the final PM2.5 implementation rule has been published in September 2007.

Third, technical difficulties in direct ly implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS that grounded the 1997 interim guidance back have been resolved. The EPA itself noted in the preamble to the November 2005 Propos ed PM2.5 Implementation Rule that these

technical concerns have been resolv ed: “As discussed in this preamble, those difficulties been resolved in most respects, and where they have not been, the proposal contains appropriate provisions to account for it .” 24 The EPA also has included the PM2.5 algorithms in the AERMOD air quality computer modeling pr ogram, the recommended model for short distance air quality assessment, thus form ally resolving prior concerns about PM2.5 modeling capabilities. 25

III.B The Agency Must Implement the Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review Program for PM2.5

On May 8, 2008, EPA finalized its regulati ons to implement the NSR program for fine particulate matter, effective July 15, 2008. 26 The new rule, entitled “Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),” requires all so urces to determine Project impacts on a

PM2.5 as PM2.5 basis.

As discussed in Comment II, the Agen cy’s Completeness Determination was issued prematurely and erroneously and the Application remains incomplete.

22 John S. Seitz, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Memorandum, Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for PM2.5, October 23, 1997.

23 Stephen D. Page, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency, Memorandum, Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM-2.5 Nonattainment Areas, April 5, 2005.

24 Proposed Rule To Implement the Fine Particle Nati onal Ambient Air Quality St andards, 70 Fed. Reg.
65984, 66043, November 1, 2005; emphasis added.

25 See Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models : Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Re visions; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 68218, 68253, November 9, 2005, adopting AERMOD as the “preferred model.”

26 Final Rule for Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5).Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

11 Therefore, the Agency must rescind the proposed PSD Permit, request a BACT analysis greenhouse gases from the Applicant, an d issue a new Completeness Determination once these BACT analyses have been su bmitted. Because this new Completeness Determination will occur after July 15, 2008, the Agency must also include a PM2.5 BACT analysis based on the Final Implementation Rule’s requirements.

III.C Modeled PM2.5 Emissions from the Pr oject’s Stationary Sources Exceed PM10 Significant Impact Levels

Notwithstanding the discussions in Comment s III.A and III.B, the Agency should have found significant impacts for PM2.5 em issions from the Project when using the PM10 surrogacy approach, as discussed in the following.

The first step in determining whethe r a source would cause significant deterioration of air quality is to compare maximum modeled ambient air concentrations of attainment pollutants to established sign ificant impact levels (“SILs”), also called significance levels. A SIL for a given criteria pollutant and averaging period is defined as the ambient concentration produced by a source’s emissions below which the source is assumed to have a less-than-significant im pact on air quality. The SILs for emissions

of SO 2 , PM10, NOx, CO, and O 3 in Class II areas can be found in the EPA’s NSR

Manual 27 , Table C-4. 28 The Class II SIL for PM10 established for a 24-hour period is 5.0 μg/m 3 . The Class II PM10 SIL on an annual basis is 1.0μg/m 3

. 29 The Class I SIL for PM10 established for a 24-hour period for areas located within 100 kilometers of a Class I area is 1.0 μg/m 3

. 30 (The Project is located within 100 kilometers of five Class I areas, and just outside of 100 kilometers from Joshua Tree National Park. 31 )

The EPA opted to use the PM10 surrogacy approach for analyzing PM2.5 impacts. Under the PM10 surrogacy approach, PM10 is used as a surrogate for PM2.5. Practically, this means that PM10 emissions are calculated and modeled to determine

ambient PM10 concentrations and these are co mpared to PM10 thresholds, in this case, the PM10 SILs. The Agency does not mentio n the 24-hour and annual PM10 SILs and instead notes that SILs for PM2.5 have not yet been established. 32 The Agency failed to

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New So urce Review Workshop Manual, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Perm itting, Draft, October 1990; cited pages attached

as Exhibit 1

.

28 NSR Manual, Table C-4, p. C.28, see Exhibit 1

.

29 Ibid

.

30 Ibid

.

31 Statement of Basis, p. 20.

32 Statement of Basis, p. 19.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

12 identify that the modeled 24-hour PM10 ambi ent air quality concentrations of 6.1 μg/m 3 by far exceed the Class II PM10 SIL of 5.0 μg/m 3 established for a 24-hour period.

Because the Agency followed the surrogacy approach for PM2.5, the Agency must finish what it started. The Agency should have compared modeled 24-hour PM10

ambient concentrations with the 24-hour PM10 SIL to determine the significance of the Project. Using the 24-hour PM10 SIL to de termine significance of maximum project impacts is analogous to the use of the PM 10 significant emissions rate to determine whether PSD applies for PM2.5. The Agency us ed the PSD significant emissions rate to determine PSD applicability for the Project 33 but failed to explain why the PM10 SILs are not equally applicable for determining significance.

Under the PM10 surrogacy approach, the Agency should have required the Applicant to conduct a full-impact analysis to determine if the Project plus existing sources would cause a significant ambient impact anywhere, including whether it

would cause or contribute to a violatio n of any NAAQS or PSD increment, among others. As the area where the Project is located is nonattainment for PM10, any increase in PM10 will contribute to a NAAQS violatio n and thus any increase in PM10 emissions is per se a significant impact. Thus, the Application is incomplete. The EPA should rescind the Application Completeness Determ ination and require that the Applicant complete a full-impact analysis.

Further, the EPA has recently proposed three different options for Class I and

Class II SILs for PM2.5. 34 The proposed Class II SIL options for a 24-hour period are 5.0, 4.0, and 1.2 μg/m 3 . The modeled Project emissions exceed all three of the proposed options for the 24-hour Class II SIL. Theref ore, Project emissions are significant no matter which option of the proposed SILs will be promulgated. The corresponding annual SIL options are 1.0, 0.08, and 0.3 μg/m 3 . If the latter option were promulgated, annual Project impacts, estimated at 0.3 μg/m 3 would also be significant. The proposed Class I SIL options for a 24-hour period are 0.08, 0.24, and 0.07 μg/m 3 . Several

maximum modeled concentrations would ex ceed the proposed 0.07 and the 0.08 μg/m 3 SIL in the Cucamonga, San Gorgonio, and San Gabriel Wilderness Areas. 35 Thus, when using the new PM2.5 SILs, Project impacts are also significant.

33 Statement of Basis, Table 3, p. 9.

34 Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605; FRL-8470-1], RIN 2060-AO24, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5, Micrometers (PM2.5) – Increments, Significant Impa ct Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC).

35 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009, Table 3.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

13 Finally, as discussed in the following comment, the Applicant underestimated PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) emissions beca use it failed to include in its emissions calculations fugitive dust emissions from wi nd erosion of the solar field and unpaved

roads and from entrained road dust from operations and maintenance vehicles traveling on unpaved roads on site. Thus , the PM2.5 emissions will likely exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III.D Fugitive Dust PM2.5 Emissions from th e Project May Result in a Violation of

the 24-Hour National Ambient Ai r Quality Standard for PM2.5

In addition to PM2.5 emissions from the Project’s fossil-fuel powered stationary equipment and the cooling tower, the Project would also result in substantial fugitive dust particulate matter emissions due to wind erosion of the 250-acre graded solar field during construction and operation of the Pr oject and the two 20-acre and 30-acre graded construction laydown areas. The Applicant in tends to use a chemical dust suppressant on the graded areas during construction but did not provide information on dust control of the graded solar fiel d during its operational phase. 36 Even if the use of dust suppressants were intended, they have been fo und to have little efficacy at suppressing small respirable dust particles. Further, while chemical dust suppressants have a relatively high initial efficiency, estima ted to vary between 40 and 98 percent, the control efficiency has been found to decay to zero within a few months. 37

In addition fugitive dust emissions wo uld result from entrained road dust emissions from operations and maintenance ve hicles driving on the unpaved solar field, and entrained road dust from delivery and waste removal vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads off-site. (The Applican t estimated that the Project would have 13 vehicles on site for operations and maintenance, which are estimated to drive a total of 79 miles per month on unpaved roads.

Major sources that belong to one of the 27 source categories under 40 CFR 52.21 must include fugitive emissions, i.e. emissions that cannot reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equi valent opening, in their potential to emit (“PTE”). The source category “Fossil fuel-fi red steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input” applies to the Project. 38 Therefore,

36 California Energy Commission, Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Application for Certification (07-AFC-1), San Bernardino County, Presiding Memb er’s Proposed Decision, CEC-800-2008-003-PMPD, May 2008, p. 115; cited pages attached as Exhibit 2.

37 T. Piechota, J. van Ee, J. Batista, K. Stave, D. James, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Eds.), Pote ntial Environmental Impact s of Dust Suppressants: “Avoiding Another Times Beach,” An Expert Panel Summary, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 30-31, 2002, Table 5, pp. 16 and 50; cited pages attached as Exhibit 3.

38 Statement of Basis, p. 8.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

14 calculations of Project emission s must include fugitive emissions. 39 The Applicant’s modeled Project PM2.5 emissions only accounte d for the Project’s stationary emissions including the CTGs and duct burners, the auxiliary heater, the auxiliary boiler, the emergency diesel engine, and the cooling tower but failed to account for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. 40

As mentioned before, modeling of the Pr oject’s stationary source PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) emissions resulted in a maximum project impact of 6.1 μg/m 3

. 41 Added to the background ambient concentration of 26 μg/m 3 , this results in a total impact of 32.1 μg/m 3 , less than 3 μg/m 3 lower than 24-hour NAAQS of 35 μg/m 3. If the PM2.5 fraction of fugitive dust emissions were included in the modeling, the NAAQS would likely be exceeded. Therefore, the Completeness Determination must be rescinded, the Applicant directed to esti mate fugitive emissions and revise the dispersion modeling to include them.



### IV. The Proposed PSD Permit’s BACT Determinations Are Incomplete and Deficient

The Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations require the proposed PSD

Permit to include emissions limits consistent with “best available control technology” for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act. 42 As discussed in Comment IV.A, the Statement of Basis lacks a BACT analysis and the proposed PSD Permit lacks permit limits for emissions of greenhouse gases. As discussed in Comments IV.C.1 and IV.D.1, the Agency failed to follow the top-down BACT procedure to determine CO and PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) BACT limits and th e proposed permit limits fail to set BACT limits based on the maximum degree of reduction that is achievable ( see Comments IV.C.2, IV.C.3, and IV.D.2).

IV.A The Proposed PSD Permit Lacks a BACT Analysis and Permit Limits for

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Project would emit greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”) and nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”) from combustion processes, and methane (“CH 4 ”) from unburned natural gas due to leakage from the natural gas pipelines. Other greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Project in clude sulfur hexafluoride (“SF6”), which is used as a gaseous insulator in the Proj ect’s high-voltage circuit breakers, and hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) and perfluoroc arbons (“PFCs”) which are used in its

39 40 CFR 52.21(b)(iii)(z).

40 See, for example, AFC, p. 6.3-66.

41 Statement of Basis, Table 7, p. 20.

42 See 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4).Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

15 refrigeration/chiller equipment. 43 The Applicant estimated 2,020,664 metric tons of

annual CO 2 -equivalent emissions of these pollutants from the Project’s stationary

sources and from circuit breaker leaks. 44 As a recent Supreme Court decision determined, greenhouse gases are pollutants su bject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Therefore, PSD permits must include a BACT analysis and a permit limit for greenhouse gas emissions, as affirmed in a recent court decision. 45,46 The proposed PSD Permit for the Project does not address emissions of these pollutants.

Based on the foregoing, EPA must perfor m a BACT analysis and set BACT-based

emission limits for CO 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from the Project. The BACT analysis must include a discussion of av ailable technologies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, on a per-unit energy basis, the use of duct burners is far less efficient than using a larg er turbine without duct burners or a small micro- or aeroderivative turbine for peak ing power. These options would produce far less greenhouse gas emissions than the prop osed duct-fired system. The proposed “major emitting facility” is still the same ki nd of statutorily defined “facility” under the

Clean Air Act whether it uses duct burners or not. Therefore, the Project should be required not to use duct burners unless there is a more effective alternative for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The BACT analysis should therefore analyze Project efficiency on a unit-energy basis and potentia l options to increase efficiency such as abandoning the use of duct burners, use of thermally more efficient aeroderivative turbines instead of duct burners, requir ing a higher percentage of solar power generation, use of CO 2 capture and storage technologies, use of oxy-firing, and other innovative technologies.

IV.B The Agency Failed to Follow Its Ow n Procedures in Establishing BACT

Limits

The Statement of Basis provides the defi nition of BACT under the Clean Air Act and explains on 21⁄2 pages the five steps in volved in a top-down BACT analysis. The

43 See Exhibit 2, pp. 78, 110 and 119-120.

44 Inland Energy, Inc., Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, Responses to CURE Data Requests, Set 2, August 2007, pp. AQ-19 – AQ-20; cited pages attached a

Exhibit 5

.

45 See , 40 CFR 52.21(j)(2): BACT analysis is required for all “regulated NSR pollutants”; and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50): a regulated NSR pollutant is defined as “any pollutant that is otherwise subject to regulation under the Act.”

46 BACT requirements encompass all pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA whether or not they are independently subject to NAAQS or other limits. See, e.g., Friends of the Chat tahoochee v. Georgia Dept. of
Natural Resources, Docket No. 2008CV146398, p. 7 (June 30, 2008).Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

16 Agency emphasizes that the five-step to p-down procedure has been consistently followed by the Environmental Appeals Board in adjudicating PSD permit appeals

. 47

Despite this detailed explanation, the Stat ement of Basis does not follow the fivestep top-down BACT analysis it describes but merely provides short summaries and conclusions for each of the Project’s emi ssions units and pollutants without in-depth discussions or support for its conclusions and without following the five steps of a topdown BACT analysis. 48 As discussed in Comment I, the Statement of Basis, without referencing the respective documents, appears to rely on the BACT analyses contained in the Applicant’s PSD Application and seve ral subsequently submitted documents as

well as numerous documents contained on the California Energy Commission’s website including the Preliminary Staff Assess ment, the Final Staff Assessment, and unidentified “Supplemental Information.” Re view of EPA’s Project docket shows that the Applicant’s own BACT determinations di d not follow the established five-step topdown BACT procedure either, including th e CO BACT determination for the CTGs,
discussed in Comment IV.C, the PM and PM2.5 BACT determination for the CTGs,
discussed in Comment IV.D, and the BACT de terminations for the auxiliary boiler, the auxiliary heater, emergency diesel engine, an d the firewater pump, in Comment IV.D.4.

IV.C The CO BACT Determination for CTGs Is Flawed

The Statement of Basis contains the follo wing paragraph as a CO BACT analysis

for the CTGs:

Carbon monoxide (CO) occurs due to in complete combustion of natural gas in the gas turbine, and in the duct burner s when they are operated. The applicant has proposed to install an oxidation cataly st to control CO. The application states that the facility will achieve 2.0 ppmvd CO over a 1-hour averaging period when it does not use duct burning, exclud ing startups and shutdowns. BACT for periods of startup and shutdown are discussed in Section 7.1.4. We believe 2.0 ppmvd CO is the lowest emission rate that has been included in a permit for a facility of this type. The application al so requests a slightly higher 3.0 ppmvd CO emission rate when duct burning is used, due to higher CO concentrations

from the duct burners. While the fac ilities we reviewed generally have higher
emission rates, there are some facilities wi th a 2.0 ppmvd CO limit that applies at

all times. We believe that the combinat ion of emission rates proposed by the applicant falls within the stricter end of the range of emission rates acceptable as
BACT for CO, based on our review of data in the RBLC. Replacing duct burning

47 Statement of Basis, pp. 10-11.

48 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-17.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

17 with solar energy, when available, will redu ce the amount of time that the facility would use duct burning with th e higher CO emission rates. 49

IV.C.1 The CO BACT Determination Does Not Follow the Top-down Procedure

Established as a Standard for BACT Determination

Neither the Agency’s one paragraph CO BACT determination nor the CO BACT determination contained in the PSD Applicatio n for the Project’s CTGs includes any of the five steps typically followed in a top-down BACT analysis, i.e. 1) identification of available control options; 2) elimination of te chnically infeasible options; 3) ranking of remaining control technologies; 4) evaluation of the most effective control alternative; and 5) selecting BACT. 50 In fact, neither the Statement of Basis nor the PSD Application even mention which technologies are availabl e to reduce CO emissions from the CTGs.

Available control technologies that should have been analyzed include good combustion practices, alternatives to du ct burning, catalytic oxidation, thermal oxidation, and SCONOX. (Presumably, duct burning and the use of solar power would occur concurrently during periods of high demand. Therefore, solar energy would not

reduce the amount of time that the fac ility would use duct burning in the summer, contrary to the Agency’s suggestion. Further additional solar could be added.) Instead,

the CO BACT determination contained in the PSD Application contains a “Top-down Ranking of Achievable Control Levels,” whic h simply excerpts CO permit limits for a

number of facilities from the South Co ast Air Quality Management District’s

BACT Guidelines and the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. 51 The provided documents do not discuss which control technologies these facilities employ to comply with their CO permit limits. 52

The CO BACT determination containe d in the PSD Application proposes CO limits and states that the facility would us e an oxidation catalyst to comply with the proposed limits. The CO BACT analyses co ntained in the PSD Application does not explain how it was determined that the use of an oxidation catalyst would constitute BACT and why other control technologies or combinations of control technologies

would not be feasible. 53 This “analysis” is insufficient to determine that the proposed permit limits are indeed BACT for CO emi ssions from the CTGs. As discussed in the following comment, the Agency erred in determining BACT for the CTGs.

49 Statement of Basis, Section 7.1.2 Carbon Monoxide, p. 14.

50 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0001, p. 4-4.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid and Appendix B to Application, Control Technology Listings, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-
0406-0003, Table B-2.

53 Ibid

.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

18 IV.C.2 Lower CO Limits Have Been Permitted Under All Firing Conditions

The Draft PSD Permit limits CO emission s from the CTGs to 2.0 ppm when the duct burners are not in use and to 3.0 ppm wh en the duct burners are firing based on the use of an oxidation catalyst and averaged over one hour. 54

A number of similar combined-cycle projec ts that incorporate duct firing have been permitted at 2.0 ppm with no CO limit adjustment or a lower CO limit when duct firing. ( See attached Table A-2 for a partial list of these Projects.) In fact, the Applicant’s summary of BACT determinations obtained from the EPA’s RBLC database shows

11 such determinations. 55 The lowest CO limits were permitted for Kleen Energy Systems, CT, whose two Siemens SGT6-500 0 F turbines were permitted at 0.9 ppm CO with the duct burners off and at 1.7 ppm CO when firing the 445 MMBtu/hr duct

burners. 56 The Applicant did not mention the perm it limits for Kleen Energy Systems. CPV Warren, VA, was permitted with two of either GE7FA, GE207FA , or Siemens STG6-5000F turbines at 1.8 ppm CO with the duct burners off and at 2.5 ppm CO with the duct burners firing. Based on the A pplicant’s RBLC summary table, ten power plants in Arizona, California, Georgia, Mi chigan, Oregon, and Washington have been permitted at 2.0 ppm CO with no CO limit adjustment for the duct burners. These include COB Energy Facility, OR, Duke Ener gy Arlington Valley II, AZ, Vernon City’s Malburg Generating Station, CA, Magnolia Po wer Project, CA, and McIntosh Combined Cycle Facility, GA. Several other plants th at had been under review or were permitted at 2.0 ppm CO without duct burner adjustment have been cancelled. In addition, the BP West Coast Products Cherry Point Cogene ration Project, WA, was also permitted at 2.0 ppm under all firing conditions. Several power plants have demonstrated compliance with these low permitted lim its as discussed in Comment IV.C.3.

The Applicant’s CO BACT determination fo r the CTGs merely states that duct
burners would emit additional CO, which will increase the uncontrolled emission levels entering the oxidation catalyst but failed to reasonably explain why the Project with similar turbines can not comply with these lower limits. 57 The Statement of Basis, while recognizing that several facilities have been permitted with a lower CO limit of 2.0 ppm that applies at all times (including when th e duct burners are firing), rationalizes the proposed higher CO limit for the Project of 3.0 ppm when the duct burners are firing by

54 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.B and IX.C.1, pp. 4-5.

55 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix B, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0003, Table B-2.

56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RACT/B ACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), 15.210 Natural Gas Fired, Combined-Cycle and Cogeneration (>25 MW).

57 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix B, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0003, Section 4.1.2.2. Top-down Ranking of Achievable Control Levels.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

19 stating that “the combination of emission rat es proposed by the applicant falls within the stricter range of emission rat es acceptable as BACT for CO.” 58 There is no justification for a higher CO limit while duct firing. Section 169(3) of the Clean Air Act

defines BACT as “an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction ...
achievable for such source,” 59 not a “ range of emission rates” as applied by the Agency.

IV.C.3 Lower CO Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice

Finally, basing BACT limits on previous ly permitted limits is a self-fulfilling prophecy that contravenes the technology-fo rcing nature of BACT. A BACT limit must represent the lowest limit “ achievable” for the source—not the lowest limit previously

achieved by sources in the past. 60 This forward-looking emphasis is the “most important” mechanism promoting the Clean Air Act’s “ph ilosophy of encouragement of technology development.” 61 The BACT standard is intended to require use of “the latest technological developments [in pollution co ntrol] as a requirement in granting the permit,” so as to “lead to rapid adoption of improvements in technology as new sources are built,” rather than “the stagnation that oc curs when everyone works against a single

national standard for new sources.” 62

The CO BACT determination relies on emi ssion levels that have been permitted in the past or demonstrated in the past at other sources. The record contains no evidence that an analysis was conducted to determine emission levels that are

“achievable” with the selected BACT te chnology, as opposed to achieved. The Applicant and the EPA should have collected and evaluated test data reported to the EPA under various regulatory programs, discussed technology performance and guarantees with vendors, and then made an engineering judgment based on physical and chemical principles using this data as to what limits are “achievable” for Victorville II to fulfill the technology forcing nature of BACT. The limits in permits for plants built in the past or permitted in the past serve only as the starting point for the BACT analysis of what is achievable for a plant to be built in the future. Those limits cannot also be the end of the BACT analysis; limits achieved in the past are a floor, not the ceiling for the BACT dete rmination of what is “achi evable” for a new source.

For example, CO concentrations of 0.046 and 0.043 ppm at 15% oxygen were

measured on the two GE Frame 7FA turbines at the Los Medanos Energy Center, at full

58 Statement of Basis, p. 14.

59 See also 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12), emphasis added.

60 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(12); emphasis added.

61 S. Rep. No. 95-127 at 18; see also Alabama Power v. Costle , 636 F.2d 323, 372 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (noting that Prevention of Significant Deterioration Progra m is intended to be “technology forcing”).

62 S. Rep. No. 95-127 at 18.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

20 load with duct burners on, during October 2001 compliance testing. 63 CO concentrations of 0.12 and 0.04 ppm were measured on the two SW 501FD turbines at the Sutter Power Project, at full load wi th duct burners on and power augmentation operational, during June 2001 compliance testing. 64 Numerous such source tests

demonstrate that much lower CO limits are rout inely achieved at other similar facilities. The Agency has access to this data and shou ld collect and analyze it to make a fresh CO BACT determination that complies with th e statutory and regulatory definition of BACT which require an emission limit base d on the maximum degree of reduction that

is achievable.

IV.D The PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Determination for

CTGs Is Flawed

The Statement of Basis states withou t further discussion that no add-on particulate emission controls have been demons trated in practice for this type of source

and that BACT for PM and PM2.5 emissions fr om Victorville II’s two General Electric (“GE”) 7FA CTGs would be the use of natural gas with a sulfur content of 0.2 grains per 100 dry standard cubic feet (“g/100 dscf”) or less to limit sulfate particulate emissions. 65

IV.D.1 The PM and PM2.5 BACT Determinations Do Not Follow the Top-down Procedure Established as Standard for BACT Analyses

The Agency’s one-paragraph BACT analysis for PM and PM2.5 is presumably based on the Applicant’s equally short BACT analysis contained in a supplement to the PSD Application for PM2.5. 66 The Applicant’s PM and PM2.5 BACT determinations also do not follow the established five-step top- down BACT procedure. (The additional supplement to the PSD Application for PM di d not contain a BACT analysis but rather relied on the PM2.5 supplement due to the fact that PM emissions are assumed to be equal to the PM10/PM2.5 emissions. 67 ) The Statement of Basi s and the Applicant’s PM2.5 BACT analysis then conclude that BA CT for both PM and PM10 (as a surrogate

63 The Avogadro Group, Los Medanos Energy Center Report for Initial Emission Compliance Tests, January 22, 2002; attached as Exhibit 6.

64 The Avogadro Group, Revised Report for Startup Emission Compliance Tests and CEMS Part 60 and Part 75 RATA, Sutter Power Project, Yuba City, Ca lifornia, January 2002; attached as Exhibit 7.

65 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15.

66 Sara Head, ENSR, Letter to Ed Pike, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Signific ant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (VV2), June 25, 2007; Do cket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0009.

67 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to An ita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

21 for PM2.5) emissions from the CTGs is 12.0 pounds per hour (“lb/hour”) without the duct burner firing and 18.0 lb/hou r with the duct burner firing. 68,69 There is no support

in the docket for this conclusion as neithe r the Statement of Basis nor the Applicant’s documents contain any discussion of achi evable PM10 and PM2.5 emission levels, permitted PM and PM10 emission limits at simil ar facilities, or results of source tests.

IV.D.2 Lower PM10 Emissions Limits Have Been Permitted

A number of natural gas-fired power plan ts with substantially similar F-class turbines have been permitted by the EPA and licensed by the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) with considerably lower PM10 emissions limits for the CTGs and associated duct burners than those proposed in the proposed PSD Permit for Victorville
II. In California, these facilities include the Blythe Energy Project Phase II, the
Cosumnes Power Plant Phase I, the Los Medanos Energy Facility, the Russell City Energy Center, the Moss Landing Power Plant Project, the Metcalf Energy Center, the Mountainview Power Plant Project, and the Inland Empire Energy Center. Turbine and duct burner characteristics and permit lim its for these facilities are summarized in

attached Table A-1 and some facilities are discussed in more detail below.

Particularly noteworthy is the Blythe En ergy Project Phase II, which employs Siemens Westinghouse F-class turbines. Th is facility was licensed by the CEC in 2005 and permitted by the EPA in 2007 with an emission limit of 6.0 lb/hour of PM10 emissions per turbine with and without firi ng the duct burners and using natural gas

with more than twice as much sulfur content as proposed for Victorville II. 70,71

, 72 The CEC requires testing of the permitted PM 10 limits based on EPA Methods 5 and 202 73

, the same testing methods as proposed for Victorville II. 74 On a unit energy-basis, the

68 Statement of Basis, pp. 14-15.

69 Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy, Inc., Letter to An ita Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, Subject: Supplement to Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, January 28, 2008; Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-

0010.

70 California Energy Commission, Blythe Energy Project Phase II, Application for Certification (02-AFC-1), Commission Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, December 2005, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35; cited pages attached as Exhibit 8.

71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Sign ificant Deterioration (PSD) Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-01, April 25, 2007, Co ndition D, p. 6; cited page attached as Exhibit 9.

72 Construction of the facility is currently on hold. See California Energy Commission, Energy Facility Status, Projects Since 1 997, Updated: 6/20/2008; http://energy.ca.gov/sitin gcases/all_projects.html ; attached as Exhibit 10.

73 The CEC additionally permits the use of CARB Method 5; see Exhibit 2, Condition AQ-4.e, p. 35.

74 See Exhibit 2, Condition AQ-14.e, p. 38.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

22 Blythe Energy Plant is permitted to em it 0.0034 lb/MMBtu of PM10 with the duct burners off and 0.0031 lb/MMBtu with the duct burners firing, less than half of the PM10 emissions the EPA proposes for Victorville II, i.e. 0.0069 lb/MMBtu with the duct burners on and 0.0083 lb/MMBtu with the duct burners firing, and determined with the

same test methods. 75 The EPA should explain, based on physical and chemical properties of the exhaust gases, why these lo wer emission levels cannot be achieved at

Victorville II.

IV.D.3 Lower PM10 Emissions Have Been Demonstrated in Practice

The Cosumnes Power Plant Phase I, whic h employs two GE 7FA turbines with no duct burners, was licensed by the CEC in 2003 with an emissions limit of 9.0 lb/hr PM10 per turbine based on an emission factor of 0.00483 lb/MMbtu. 76 The Cosumnes Power Plant Phase I is operational and comp liance with this emission limit has been

demonstrated. The most recent stack tests measured average PM10 emission rates of 4.0 and 3.3 lb/hr from the two turbines, re spectively, with EPA Methods 201A and 202. On a unit energy-basis, average PM10 emissions were determined to be 0.00235 and 0.00195 lb/MMBtu, respectively, less than a th ird of the proposed PM10 emissions for

Victorville II. 77

The Los Medanos Energy Center, which employs two GE S207FA turbines, was initially licensed with PM10 emission limit s of 16.3 lb/hr per turbine train with and without duct burner operation. In 2006, the project owner requested lowering the PM10 permit limits to 9.0 lb/hr based on stac k tests repeatedly demonstrating PM10 emissions considerably below 9.0 lb/hr. As a result, the CEC licensed revised turbine PM10 emission limits of 9.0 lb/hr or 0.0040 lb /MMBtu per turbine including when the 330 MMBtu/hr duct burner is firing. 78

75 Blythe II: (6.0 lb/hr) / (1,776 MMBtu/hr turbine) = 0.0034 lb/MMBtu (6.0 lb/hr) / (1,776 MMBtu/hr turbin e + 132 MMBtu/hr duct burner) = 0.0031 lb/MMBtu ;

Victorville II: (12.0 lb/hr) / (1 ,736.4 MMBtu/hr turbine) = 0.0069 lb/MMBtu (18.0 lb/hr) / (1,736.4 MMBtu/hr turbine + 424.3 MMBtu duct burner) = 0.0083 lb/MMBtu

.

76 California Energy Commission, Co sumnes Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, Application for Certification (01-AFC-19), Commission Decision, P800-03-013, September 2003, Condition AQ-17, pp. 27-28; cited pages attached as Exhibit 11.

77 The Avogadro Group, LLC, Source Test Report, 2007 Emission Compliance Tests, SFA Cosumnes Power Plant, Herald, California, March 16, 2007, pp. 4 and 11; document without appendices attached as

Exhibit 12.

78 California Energy Commission, In the Matter of: Los Medanos Energy Center, Order No. 07-0523-4, Order Approving a Petition to Lower the Annual PM10 Emissions Limit for the Facility, Docket
No. 98-AFC-1C; attached as Exhibit 13.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

23 These examples and others given in Ta ble A-1 for similar turbines including

other GE Frame 7FA turbines demonstrate th at the proposed PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) limits of 12.0 lb/hr without and 18.0 lb /hr with duct burners firing do not

constitute BACT for the CTGs. As di scussed previously for the CO BACT determination, the Applicant and the EPA sh ould have collected and evaluated test data reported to the EPA under various regulatory programs, discussed technology performance and guarantees with vendors, and then made an engineering judgment based on physical and chemical principles using this data as to what limits are “achievable” for Victorville II to fulfill the technology-forcing nature of BACT.

IV.D.4 Demonstrated In Practice Is the Wr ong Standard for Emission Control Technologies

The Statement of Basis states withou t further discussion that no add-on particulate emission controls have been de monstrated in practice. Demonstrated in practice is the LAER standard and does not apply to a BACT analysis. A BACT technology need only be achievable.

The NSR Manual sets out a process to determine the technical feasibility of a control technology that has not been installe d and operated successfully on the type of source under review. NSR Manual, Sec. IV.B. If a technology is “available” and “applicable” it qualifies as a BA CT technology that must be in cluded in Step 2 of the top down process. A technology is available if it can be obtained by the applicant through

commercial channels or is otherwise availa ble within the common sense meaning of the term. An available technology is “applicable ” if it can reasonably be installed and operated on the source type under conside ration. A technology that is available and applicable is technically feasible.

There are a number of technologies that m eet these criteria that should have been evaluated and required as BACT for PM10/PM2.5. These include fabric filter baghouses, Pall filters, wet electrostatic precipitators (“Wet ESP” or “WESP”), 79

79 Candidate Stationary and Area Control Measures, Chicago PM2.5 Workshop, Ju ne 21, 2007, Tim Smith, USEPA at slide 15 (recognizing Wet ESP’s as “innovative PM2.5 controls”); available at http://earth1.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/presents/cont rol_measures_stationary_ and_area-tim_smith.ppt ;
attached as Exhibit 4

.

See also Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Reductions by Improving Performance of Control Devices: Conclusions and Recommendations, Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by E.H. Pechan
& Associates, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265 at 23 (September 30, 2005) (“Pechan Report”) available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/measu res/pm25_recommend_2007.pdf (describing Wet ESP as an “innovative control system” that “yield[s] higher PM2.5 emissions reductions than the methods identified to improve existing control device performance”), attached as Exhibit 15 ; and

CIBO Industrial Emissions Control Technology II Co nference, August 2 - 4, 2004 Portland, Maine at 6 (explaining that Wet ESP’s are an effective control tec hnology for PM2.5: “There are no moving parts in aPless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

24 advanced hybrid particulate collectors, 80 removal of sulfur from the natural gas feed, and use of an ammonia slip cleanup cataly st. Wet electrostatic precipitators, for example, are widely used in many industries and many more are considering the WESP as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).”

The Completeness Determination must be revoked and the BACT analysis for PM2.5 redone to cure this serious deficiency.

IV.D.5 Proposed Test Methods to Determine Compliance Require Lowering the PM and PM10 (as a Surrogate for PM2.5) BACT Limits

The proposed PSD Permit requires determination of compliance with the PM and PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) permit limits by measuring PM and PM10 emissions using EPA’s Reference Methods 5 and 202. In lieu of Method 202, the proposed PSD Permit allows the use of EPA Conditional Test Methods for particulate

matter, i.e. CTM-039 or CTM-040. 81 There are a number of problems with allowing the Applicant to choose from these test methods.

First, EPA Conditional Test Method CTM- 040 has been superseded by OTM27 on May 8, 2008. 82,83 Thus, the proposed PSD Permit should be revised to refer to OTM27
and its successors, rather than CTM-040.

Second, the use of these test methods results in considerably different PM10

measurements for the same source. EPA Meth od 5 for filterable particulate matter and Method 202 for condensable particulate matter are known to overestimate PM10 emissions from gas turbines and other fired sources. 84,85 Method 5 measures total

wet ESP. The [fine] particles never really reach the electrode and are constantly washed away by the water flow);”available at http://www.cibo.org/emissions/2004/summary.pdf ; attached as Exhibit 16

.

80 Since its original development, the name of this technology has been changed to “Advanced HybridTM.” The name was trademarked by W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. See “Demonstration of a FullScale Retrofit of the Advanced Hybrid Particulat e Collector Technology,” U.S. Department of Energy (February 2007 ); available at http://204.154.137.14/technologies/coalpower/cct c/PPII/bibliography/demonstration/environmental /otter/PPA_Otter%20Tail_PPA_Final%20for%20Posting.pdf , attached as Exhibit 17

.

81 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 10.

82 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conditio nal Test Methods, CTM-040: “Draft Method for Determination of PM10/PM2.5 has been superseded by OTM027”; http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/ctm.html

.

83 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Determin ing PM10 and PM2.5 Emissions from Stationary Sources (Constant Sampling Rate Procedure), May 8, 2008.

84 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html

.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

25 particulate matter, rather than PM10, thus overestimating actual PM10 emissions.

Method 202 overestimates condensable PM10 du e to the formation of artifacts in the wet impinger train, such as the oxidation of SO 2 to SO 3 . The artifact problems with Method 202 can be minimized by selectin g options listed in the method, such as nitrogen purge, which is required to determine compliance for Victorville II. 86,87,88 To address these artifact problems, the U.S. EP A has developed alternative test method CTM-039 for total PM10, which employs a diluti on tunnel method and measures both total PM10 and PM2.5, and is currently deve loping an alternate for Method 202. 89

Most stack tests at other facilities in th e past used EPA Method 5 and 202 without the nitrogen purge. 90 Thus, the resulting measured emissions are artificially high and BACT determinations made using this data report emission limits that are artificially high. If these facilities were stack-tested with EPA Method 202 using a nitrogen purge
or with CTM-039, lower PM10 emissions rates would be measured. These lower PM10

emissions should result in lower BACT emis sion limits. Therefore, the proposed PSD Permit should have established separate perm it limits for PM10 depending on the test method used to determine compliance.

In addition to the comments on the proposed PM10 BACT limits above, the Agency must revise its BACT determination to address the lower emission rates that would be achieved when using Method 5 with nitrogen purge or CTM-039.

IV.E BACT Determinations for Auxiliary Bo iler, Auxiliary, Heater, Emergency Engine, and Firewater Pump Are Flawed

Most of the Applicant’s analyses for the auxiliary boiler, the heat transfer fluid (“HTF”) heater, the emergency diesel engi ne, and the firewater pump engine suffer from the same problems as the CO and PM and PM10 BACT analyses for the turbines,

i.e. the failure to follow a top-down BACT pr ocedure, resulting in failure to select proper BACT levels. With the exception of the CO BACT determination for the auxiliary

85 See , for example, G.C. England, Development of Fi ne Particulate Emission Factors and Speciation Profiles for Oil and Gas-fired Combustion System s, Technical Memorandum: Conceptual Model of Sources of Variability in Combustion Turbine PM10 Emissions Data, March, 2004; attached as Exhibit 18

.

86 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html

.

87 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conditiona l Test Method (CTM) 039, Measurement of PM2.5 and PM10 Emissions by Dilution Sa mpling, (Constant Sampling Rate Procedures), CTM-039 (04_Rev 2), July 2004.

88 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition H.d.iv.a., p. 9.

89 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html

90 See attached Table A-1 and Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 13.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

26 boiler and auxiliary heater, the Agency’s an d the Applicant’s “BACT analyses” consist of one paragraph per unit with no further su pport for the conclusions in the docket.



### V. The Proposed PSD Permit Fails to Include a Permit Limit for Ammonia Slip

The Statement of Basis states that ex cess ammonia emissions from the CTGs’ selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) system, the so-called ammonia slip, would be limited to 5 ppmvd. 91 Yet the proposed PSD Permit does not contain any restrictions on the ammonia slip from the SCR. Because ammonia is a precursor to PM2.5 particulate matter emissions, the proposed PSD Permit shou ld be revised to provide for monitoring and recordkeeping of the ammonia slip.



### VI. The Proposed PSD Permit Li mits Are Not Enforceable

The proposed permit limits must be enfo rceable as a practical matter to qualify as legitimate restrictions on emissions. P ractical enforceability means the source and/or enforcement authority must be able to sh ow continual compliance (or noncompliance) with each limitation or requirement. See , U.S. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. 682 F.Supp. 1122, Civil Action No. 86-A-1880 (D. Colorado, March 22, 1988). The proposed PM/PM10 limits are not practically enforceable because the proposed PSD Permit contains inadequate monitoring requirements.

The U.S. EPA has issued a substantial amou nt of guidance on effectively limiting a source’s potential to emit through en forceable permit conditions. Practical enforceability means the source must be able to show continuous compliance with each limitation or requirement. 92 Adequate testing, monitoring, and record-keeping must be included in the permit. 93 The proposed permit conditions in the proposed PSD Permit for Victorville II fall short of assuring that the proposed limits are enforceable as a practical matter. 94

The U.S. EPA’s New Source Review Manu al (“NSR Manual”) includes a chapter on “Effective Permit Writing.” This chapter explains that emission and operational limits “must be clearly expressed, easily me asurable, and allow no subjectivity... Such

91 Statement of Basis, p. 14.

92 See

, e.g. , “Guidance on Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting,” from Terrell F. Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seit z, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices, June 13, 1989; attached as Exhibit 14.

93 NSR Manual, pp. A.5-A.6; see Exhibit 1

.

94 In these comments, the terms “enforceable” and “enforceable as a practical matter” shall be used interchangeably.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

27 limits should be of a short term nature, continuous and enforceable.” 95 Several

conditions contained in the Permit violate these characteristics.

An appendix to the NSR Manual further cl arifies the meaning of enforceability. It

notes:

Compliance with any limitation must be able to be established at any given time. When drafting permit limitations, the writer must always ensure that restrictions are written in such a manner that an insp ector could verify instantly whether the source is or was complying with the pe rmit conditions. Therefore, short-term averaging times on limitations are essential.

Emission limits should reflect operation of the control equipment, be short-term, and, where feasible, the permit should require a continuous emissions monitor. Blanket emissions limits alone ( e.g. , tons/yr, lb/hr) are virtually impossible to verify or enforce, and are therefore not enforceable as a practical matter.

When permits contain production or oper ational limits, they must also have requirements that allow a permitting agen cy to verify a source’s compliance with

its limits. These additional conditions di ctate enforceability and usually take the form of recordkeeping requirements. 96

As explained below, the proposed PSD Per mit is not enforceable because it fails to specify monitoring requirements and do es not contain adequate monitoring or recordkeeping to assure continuous comp liance. Some of the limits are also not enforceable because they are based on long averaging periods and/or do not include both an instantaneous limit and an emissions cap.

VI.A Testing for PM and PM10 Emission Limi ts for CTGs Is Not Adequate to Assure Continuous Compliance

The proposed PSD Permit limits PM and PM10 (as a surrogate for PM2.5) emissions from the CTGs to 12.0 lb/hr when the duct burners are off and 18.0 lb/hr when the duct burners are fired based on a 12-month rolling average to be verified with annual performance testing (stack test ) and monthly natural gas fuel testing. 97 This condition is not adequate to ensure continual compliance with the permit limits. According to the New Source Review Workshop Manual , “BACT emission limits or

conditions must be met on a continua l basis at all levels of operation ( e.g. , limits written

95 NSR Manual, p. H.5; see Exhibit 1

.

96 Ibid , pp. c.3–c.5.

97 Proposed PSD Permit, Conditions IX.C.1, IX.H.1.a.i, and IX.H.1.d.iv.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

28 in pounds/MMBtu or percent reduction achi eved), demonstrate protection of short term ambient standards (limits written in pounds/hour) and be enforceable as a practical matter (contain appropriate averaging times, compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements).” 98

A stack test normally lasts only a few hours (3 to 6 hours) and is conducted under ideal, prearranged conditions. Staged annual or other periodic testing is not indicative of emissions during routine op eration or startups and shutdowns on the other 364 days of the year, or 8,750-plus hours. One 3-hour test per year over a 50-year facility life at 85% capacity amounts to testing only about 0.04% of the operating hours. This is a long way from demonstrating continuous compliance.

Further, annual stack testing does not ca pture spikes caused by normal process operations. It is well known that “[m]anua l stack tests are generally performed under optimum operating conditions, and as such , do not reflect the full-time emission

conditions from a source.” 99 A widely-used handbook on Continuous Emissions Monitoring (“CEMs”) notes, with respect to PM 10 source tests, that: “Due to the planning and preparations necessary for thes e manual methods, the source is usually notified prior to the actual testing. This le ad time allows the source to optimize both operations and control equipment perf ormance in order to pass the tests.” 100

As discussed, an annual stack test does not provide any method to assure that

the BACT limits for PM and PM10 are met on a “continual basis.” The Permit should be revised to include an instantaneous permit limit in (in, for example, lb/MMBtu) and

installation of a CEMS for PM and PM10 in the stack to address those periods when direct stack testing is not conducted. Annu al and quarterly stack testing of the CEMS should be performed to demonstrate its performance.

VI.B No Recordkeeping for Hours of Operation for Duct Burners

The proposed PSD Permit restricts the comb ined hours of operation for both duct burners to 2,000 hours per year per 12-month rolling average in Condition C.2. 101 Yet, the proposed PSD Permit fails to require any recordkeeping to ensure that the 2,000-hour limit for operation of both duct burners is not exceeded. The Proposed Permit should be revised to include a requir ement for recordkeeping for operations of the two duct burners to be submitted annually to the EPA.

98 NSR Manual, p. B.56; see Exhibit 1

.

99 40 Fed. Reg. 46,241 (Oct. 6, 1975).

100 James A. Jahnke, Continuous Emission Monitoring, 2 nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000, at p. 241.

101 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 5.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

29 VI.C Insufficient Monitoring fo r Cooling Tower Emissions

The proposed PSD Permit limits cooling to wer PM emissions to 1.6 lb/hr based on a 0.0005% drift rate with a maximum circulation rate of 130,000 gallons per minute and a maximum total dissolved solids (“TDS”) content of 5,000 ppm. 102 The proposed PSD Permit requires an annual source test for cooling tower PM emissions. 103 To demonstrate continual compliance with the PM permit limit, the proposed PSD Permit requires calculation of the mass emissions rat e based on the TDS content determined by weekly testing of the blow-down water quality and the permitted circulation rate. 104 The proposed PSD Permit further requires that a maintenance procedure be established that states how often and which procedures w ill be used to ensure the integrity of the drift eliminators to guarantee that TDS limits are not exceeded and to ensure compliance with recirculation rates. 105 These requirements are insufficient to ensure continuous compliance with the proposed PM permit limit.

First, the Agency must layout the proposed maintenance procedure for establishing the integrity of the drift elimin ators in a plan subject to public review as part of the permitting process and must require recordkeeping to assure that the procedure is followed. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed PM permit limit of 1.6 lb/hr, it is essential to contin uously monitor the cooling tower circulation rate and TDS in the circulating water and to re quire periodic testing of PM emissions in the cooling tower drift rate.

VI.D No Restrictions on Hours of Operati on and No Compliance Testing for Heater, Boiler, Emergency Use Engine, or Fire Water Pump

The proposed PSD Permit requires installation and maintenance of an operational non-resettable totalizing mass or volumetric flow meter in each fuel line for the heater (Unit D5) and the boiler (Unit D6). In addition, the proposed PSD Permit requires installation and maintenance of an operational non-resettable elapsed time meter for the heater, the boiler, the emergenc y use engine (Unit D7), and the firewater pump (Unit D8). 106 The proposed PSD Permit fails to restrict the operating hours for any of these units, thus rendering installation of the elapsed time meters meaningless.

102 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.F, p. 7.

103 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition, IX.H.1.v.

104 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.H.2.a through IX.H.2.c.

105 Proposed PSD Permit, Condition IX.H.2.d.

106 Proposed PSD Permit, p. 12.Pless Comments on Victorville II proposed PSD Permit July 7, 2008

30 Emission estimates for the auxiliary bo iler are based on maximum operation of 500 hours per year. 107 Emission estimates for the auxiliary heater are based on maximum operation of 1,000 hours per year. 108 Emission estimates for the emergency use engine and the fire water pump are ba sed on maximum operation of 50 hours per

year. 109 These maximum hours of operation must be written into a permit condition to

ensure that actual annual emissions from the Project do not exceed permitted annual

emissions.

Beyond requiring installation of the tw o meters, the Proposed PSD contains no monitoring or source testing requirements for any of these four emissions units. Installation of fuel and elapsed time meters al one is insufficient to ensure that emissions from these units would not exceed the pr oposed BACT limits. The proposed PSD Permit should be revised to contain a permit condition requiring at least an initial and
annual source test for the heater, boiler, em ergency use engine, and the firewater pump.

107 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-5 “Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Auxiliary Boiler.”

108 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-6

“Emissions from Natural Gas Fired HTF Heater.”

109 City of Victorville, Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project, April 2007, Appendix C, Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0406-0004, Table C-7 “Emissions from Emergency Diesel Generator” and Ta ble C-8 ”Emissions from Firewater Pump Diesel Engine.”Table A-1: Permitted PM and PM10 Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power Plants with F-Class TurbinesOperator/Power PlantAirDistrict/StateTurbineSize/Fuel InputTurbineTypeDuctBurnersPM/PM10Emissions Limits1ComplianceTest MethodsNaturalGas SulfurControls2Status3(MW)(MMBtu/hr) (MMBtu/hr)(per turbine without/with duct burner)* calculatedContent(gr/100 dscf)Caithness/Blythe IIaMDAQMD/CA2 x 170 MW2 x 1,776 MMBtu/hrSiemensWestinghouseF V84.3A 2 x 1326/6 lb/hr0.0034/0.0031 lb/MMBtu*EPA 5 andEPA 202 or ARB 5 0.5 SCR, DLN on holdCalpine/Russell CitybBAAQMD/CA2 x 200 MW2 x 1,979.4 MMBtu/hrSiemensWestinghouse501F2 x 2008.64/11.64 lb/hr0.0042/0.0052 lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods ordilution method0.25SCR, DLN,oxidationcatalyston holdCalpine/Los MedanoscBAAQMD/CA2 x 2,012 MMBtu/hr GE S207FA 2 x 33349/95lb/hr0.0045/0.0038 lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods ordilution method 1.0SCR, DLN,oxidationcatalyst operationalSMUD FA/Cosumnes IdSMAQMD/CA2 x 170 MW2 x 1,865 MMBtu/hrGE 7241FAnone9/-lb/hr0.0048/- lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods0.25SCR, DLNoperationalDuke Energy/Moss LandingeMBUAPCD/CA4 x 172 MW4 x 1,872 MMBtu/hr GE PG7241FA none9-/ lb/hr0.0048/- lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods SCR, DLN operationalCalpine/MetcalffBAAQMD/CA2 x 185 MWSiemensWestinghouse501F2 x 2009/12 lb/hr0.0049/0.0059 lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods ordilution method0.2SCR, DLN,oxidationcatalystoperationalSCE/Mountainview 3 and 4gSCAQMD/CA4 x 166.7 MW4 x 1991 MMBtu/hr GE 7FA 4 x 13511/11 lb/hr0.0055/0.0052 lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethod 0.05% bwSCR, DLN,oxidationcatalyst operationalInland Empire/Inland EmpirehSCAQMD/CA2 x 174 MW2 x 1,813 MMBtu/hrGE PG7251FB2 x 69711/11 lb/hr0.0061/0.0044 lb/MMBtu*District-approvedmethods0.1SCR, DLN,oxidationcatalystunderconstructionCity of Victorville/Victorville IIiMDAQMD/CA2 x 154 MW2 x 1,736.4 MMBtu/hrGE 7FArapid start 2 x 424.312/18 lb/hr0.0069/0.0083 lb/MMBtu*EPA 5 andEPA 202 orCTM-039 orCTM-040 0.2SCR, DLN,oxidationcatalystunderreviewa U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Caithness Blythe II, L.L.C. (Blythe II), Authority to Construct, Issued Pursuant to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)Requirements at 40 CFR §52.21, PSD Permit Number SE 02-01, April25, 2007; Condition D, p. 6; attached as Exhibit 19; and California Energy Commission, Blythe Energy Project Phase II,Application for Certification (02-AFC-1), Commission Decision, CEC-800-2005-005-CMF, December 2005; Condition AQ-4(b)(iii), p.35; attached as Exhibit 8.b California Energy Commission, Russell City Energy Center, Amendment No. 1 (01-AFC-7C), Alameda County, Final Commission Decision, CEC-800-2007-003-CMF, Condition AQ-20(h),p. 107; attached as Exhibit 20.c California Energy Commission, Pittsburg District Energy Facility [now Los Medanos, Application for Certification (98-AFC-1),Commission Decision, P800-99-013, August, 1999, attached asExhibit 21.d California Energy Commission, Cosumnes Power Plant Project, Sacramento County, Application for Certification (01-AFC-19), Commission Decision, P800-03-013, September 2003, attachedas Exhibit 11.e California Energy Commission, Moss Landing Power Plant Project,Application for Certification, Commission Decision, P 800-00-008, November 2000, attached as Exhibit 22.f California Energy Commission, The Metcalf Energy Center, Application for Certification (99-AFC-3), Santa Clara County, Commission Decision, P800-01-023, September 2001, ConditionAQ-20(h), p. 146; attached as Exhibit 23.g California Energy Commission, Mountainview Power Project, Application for Certification (00-AFC-2), San Bernardino County, Commission Decision, P800-01-008, March 2001,Condition AQ-14, p. 40; attached as Exhibit 24.h California Energy Commission, Inland Empire Energy Center, Application for Certification (01-AFC-17), Riverside County, Commission Decision, December 2003; attached as Exhibit 25.i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, VictorvilleII Hybrid Power Project (SE 07-02), Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, Proposed PermitConditions, June 2008, p. 5.1 After initial startup, except during startup and shutdown periods2 SCR = selective catalytic reduction; DLN = dry-low NOx3 Status as of June 18, 2008 based on CEC website athttp://energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html;seeExhibit 104 Initially permitted with 83 MMBtu/hr duct burners; revised to permit 333 MMBtu/hr duct burners5 Initially permitted at 16.3/16.3 lb/hr; project owner requested, and the CEC approved in 2007, a revised turbine PM10 emission limit of 9 lb/hr based on stack tests consistently measuringbelow 9 lb/hr (with 333 MMBtu/hr duct burners firing)Table A-2: Permitted CO Emissions Rates for Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Power PlantsOperator/Power Plant Air District/TurbineSize/Fuel Input Turbine TypeDuctBurnersCOEmissions Limits1Controls2Status3State(MW)(MMBtu/hr) (MMBtu/hr)(per turbine without/with duct burner)Kleen Energy SystemsaCT 2 x Siemens SGT6-5000F 2 x 445 0.9/1.7 ppm oxidation catalyst permittedCPV Warren/CPV WarrenaVA2 xGE 7FA orGE 207FA orSiemens SGT6-5000F2 x1.8/2.5 ppmoxidation catalystpermittedSCPPA/Magnolia Power ProjectbSCAQMD/CA1 x 1787 MMBtu/hr GE PG7241FA 1 x 583 2.0/2.0 ppmSCR, DLN,oxidation catalyst operationalVernon City/Malburg Generating StationdSCAQMD/CA2 x 42.2 MWAlstom GTX-1002 x2.0/2.0 ppmDLN, SCR,oxidation catalystoperationalBP West Coast ProductsBP Cherry PointeWA3 x 174 MW3 x 1,614 MMBtu/hrGE 7FA3 x 1052.0/2.0 ppmSCR, DLN,oxidation catalystpermittedCity of VictorvilleVictorville IIfMDAQMD/CA2 x 154 MW2 x 1,736.4 MMBtu/hrGE 7FArapid start2 x 424.32.0/3.0 ppmSCR, DLN,oxidation catalystunder reviewa RBLC.b California Energy Commission, Magnolia Power Project, Application for Certification (01-AFC-6),Los Angeles County, City of Burbank, CommissionDecision, P800-03-003, March 2003, pp. 117and 123; attached as Exhibit 26.c California Energy Commission, Malburg Generating Station Project,Application for Certification 01-AFC-25, City of Vernon, Los Angeles County,Commission Decision, May 2003, P800-03-007,p. 119; attached as Exhibit 27.e Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, BP Cherry Point Cogeneration Project, BP West Coast Products, LLC, Whatcom County, Washington, FinalApproval of Construction and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, No. EFSEC/2002-01, October 10, 2006; attached as Exhibit28.f U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, VictorvilleII Hybrid Power Project (SE 07-02), Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit,Proposed Permit Conditions, June 2008.1 After initial startup, except during startup and shutdown periods2 SCR = selective catalytic reduction; DLN = dry-low NOx3 Status as of June 18, 2008 based on CEC website athttp://energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html